Kroger showdown: man confronts gun-toter

The Kroger on Emmet St. and Hydraulic Rd. was the unwitting host of a gun "show."

courteney stuart

Protest pattern? Like the young man in Kroger, this Utah man walked into a JC Penny with an assault rifle just two weeks ago, trying to make a point about the Second Amendment.

facebook photo

1

2

Bob Girard had a craving for some ice cream last Sunday evening, so he stopped in at the Kroger on Hydraulic Road to pick up vanilla bean, extra chocolate, and strawberry, along with some Hershey's chocolate syrup. The last thing he expected to encounter was a fellow shopper with a rifle slung across his shoulder.

"What are you carrying?" asked Girard, a well-known local musician, who originally recounted the now widely reported incident in a Facebook post.

"An assault rifle," the guy said.

"What caliber?" asked Girard.

"A .308," he said. "An AR-15."

"Can I ask why you're carrying it around in Kroger?"

The guy told Girard it was his constitutional right to carry around a firearm.

"Here's really what you're doing," said Girard before he walked away. "What you're doing is bullshit."

Girard, reached by phone, says he didn't feel threatened by the man, who he estimates to have been in his early 20s, but according to news reports of the incident, which happened on Sunday, January 27 around 5pm, other shoppers most definitely did. Girard was angry.

"I began to think that every concealed carry person in the store has by now unsnapped their holster and is shopping one-handed," he wrote in his post, "waiting for a chance to make the papers."

After buying his ice cream, Girard says he happened to walk out of the store at the same time as the gun-toting young man. He noticed the man had not purchased anything.

"Is your gun loaded?" Girard asked.

"It's hot," said the young man.

"Does that mean it's loaded?"

"Yes."

Girard says he tagged along about 20 feet behind the guy, deciding on whether or not to continue the conversation, when five police cruisers responded to the situation. Girard witnessed a tense stand-off between the man and the officers, who had their guns drawn and were pointing them at the young man's head as he tried to explain what he was doing with the gun. The young man slowly lowered the rifle and placed it on the ground, like we've all seen in numerous cop shows, stepping 10 steps back, kneeling and then lying on the ground.

As recently reported, the young man was released and no charges were filed. In Virginia, carrying a firearm in plain sight is not illegal, and the young man had a permit. The man's name was not released.

"This situation can be quite dangerous for the individual who had the weapon as well as for the law-enforcement officers responding in an emergency mode," says Charlottesville police Lt. Ronnie Roberts. "We are just fortunate that nobody was hurt."

While Roberts says there is no Virginia statute that would allow for a formal charge, the department is in communication with its legal office on what options are available should this happen again.

"It may require the assistance of our legislative representatives," he says.

Meanwhile, to prevent such incidents, Roberts says that businesses like Kroger can post signs indicating that no firearms are allowed.

"I understand the different contexts in which the Second Amendment is interpreted and expressed," says Girard, "but I'm confused about the spectacularly stupid reasoning behind an armed promenade through Kroger, unless it's some sort of weird NRA membership dare or a narcissistic fantasy."

Whether or not that is the case, one thing is certain: this was not an original idea.

Earlier this month, two 22-year old men in Portland, Oregon were seen walking the streets with assault rifles on their backs. Questioned by police, they said they were exercising their Second Amendment rights and "hoping to educate the public," police reported. Back in December, a man in Portland, Maine carried a loaded AR-15 along a popular city trail to make a public display of his rights.

And just two weeks ago another 22-year old man entered a JC Penney in Riverdale, Utah with an unloaded AR-15 across his back and a loaded Glock 19C strapped to his side. According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the young man said he was trying to demonstrate that firearms were not dangerous in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Indeed, Girard says the young man was very calm as the police aimed their weapons at him, leading him to believe that he may have been coached on what to do and how to behave.

"In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution," says Girard.

"I'm an ardent supporter of both the 1st and 2nd Amendments, and both should be vigorously defended," says local lawyer Todd Rich, but he thinks this incident was akin to someone in the grocery store parking lot with a megaphone screaming at people that they are going to hell.

"This nimrod is as bad or worse," Rich says. "The only point he proved is that our civil liberties even apply to morons."

Terry Mahoney, a former Marine the Hook spoke to, has some advice for gun toting Second Amendment advocates.

"If you want to walk around carrying a gun," he says, "join the armed forces and go to Afghanistan or some other place."

Mahoney says he recognizes the right to own guns for self-defense, but he worries that too many people who own them haven't had the proper training on how to use them for that purpose.

"It shouldn't be harder to get a driver's license and operate a car than it is to get a gun permit and use a gun," he says.

Days after the encounter, Girard reflects on all the ways this apparent "protest" could have gone wrong, from another shopper with a concealed weapon thinking he could prevent a mass shooting by killing the man, to the police overreacting.

"The downside of an incident like this is potentially horrible," he says.

205 comments

I HeArTE JADE February 1st, 2013 | 8:17am

Kudos to the "gun-toter"!

BTW... is "in plain SITE" supposed to be some sort of Hook pun?

John February 1st, 2013 | 8:44am

I've admired Bob for a long time but this confirms he is an awesome guy.

JimR. February 1st, 2013 | 8:52am

"waiting for a chance to make the papers." I wonder if any movie patrons in Colorado wished someone had a concealed weapon on that fateful night. I don't think it's about "making the papers" at all.

JimR. February 1st, 2013 | 8:53am

I forgot to ask.....how was the ice cream?

Andy February 1st, 2013 | 8:59am

Guy walks into Kroger with loaded assault rifle, trips on a can of creamed corn and in falling down sets off a hail of bullets killing three seniors, two stockboys, four toddlers and their mothers. Farfetched? Not really. What is farfetched is the idea that even such an outcome would get our legislators to enact some sane gun laws.

Dolemite February 1st, 2013 | 9:00am

Right on Bob Girard! This is spot-on (in the public spaces context): "In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution."

Jason February 1st, 2013 | 9:11am

I’m a gun owner, I have a concealed carry permit and have worked and trained with firearms for over twenty years, I am also a member of the NRA. To the young man that did this; yes it is not against the law but given the current climate you foolishly put yourself and believe it or not others at risk. Being a responsible gun owner is just that. What you did is childish, dumb and most of all dangerous. And if you have to ask why, you have no business owning or caring one. I get it, showing that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens, is not a bad thing but there are better ways of making your point. Common sense kid, start using it.

Scott Johnson February 1st, 2013 | 9:22am

Nice job, Hook. You gave this Girard guy the first wish of every opinionated person with an exaggerated view of his own importance and a desperate need for something to stand for. You gave him a public forum for his opinions. Contrasting opinions? Not a sign of one in the entire story. Welcome to the Fox News "Fair And Balanced" club.

Logan February 1st, 2013 | 9:28am

So if someone did this and someone shot you in the head could you claim stand your ground? The other person did have an "assault" rifle in a kroger after all.

You have to not only think about the person who is open carrying, but also about the other people around them. The reality is that with recent events it is reasonable for other people to be on edge and jumpy if someone around them has an assault rifle. Again what if someone else decided that this guy was a threat and escalated the situation?

To compare this to someone with a megaphone is absurd. As far as i know there has never been a mass killing caused by a megaphone. It should absolutely illegal to open carry an assault rifle in public. Put it in your guitar case like ever other respectable person.

stew February 1st, 2013 | 9:38am

Isn't this a lot like "shouting fire in a crowded theater?" The supreme court has ruled that there are common sense limits to our constitutional rights. This would be an interesting court case. They should charge him, not for carrying, but for being a public nuisance and get ole whitehead to take it all the way to the supreme court. fun fun fun.

Concerned Citizen February 1st, 2013 | 9:38am

I'm glad to see other people picking this apart. Yes, it was an irresponsible thing to do, and yes it gives responsible gun owners a bad name.

"In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution," and
"I began to think that every concealed carry person in the store has by now unsnapped their holster and is shopping one-handed," he wrote in his post, "waiting for a chance to make the papers."

Both of these statements suggest to me that Mr. Girard has a preconceived notion about the types of people who carry legally and he is unwilling to step outside of these notions and appreciate the fact that there are regular people who would save his life in a crisis, whether he agrees with the methods used or not.

We did ask for contrasting opinions from gun rights advocates, but, as you can see in the article, they did not approve of what the young man did. If you yourself have a contrasting opinion, and perhaps endorse the young man's actions, please, feel free to weigh in.

local person February 1st, 2013 | 9:43am

sounds to me like bob girard was looking to make the papers - otherwise why would he have posted it on facebook. his confrontation with the man with the gun could possibly have created an explosive situation and put a lot of people in danger. what idiot would walk up to a man with a gun and make the kind of comments he did. he's not a brave man but an incredibly stupid, self important jerk. next time call the police who are trained to handle situations like this and keep your face and mouth out of it before you get someone hurt or killed.

Martin Topples February 1st, 2013 | 9:56am

If only this dude would hang out in Tonsler Park with his AR instead of Kroger............

Da Troof February 1st, 2013 | 10:07am

By my reckoning, Rob Bell has carried more bills in recent years that serve to restrict civil liberties in the name of "law enforcement" than darned near any other legislator in the GA. Something tells me he will be strangely silent on this issue.

Dolemite February 1st, 2013 | 10:14am

@Troof: Shouldn't one be required to have a vaginal ultrasound before carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise in public? What don't have one? Use another cavity. After all you should be shamed and allowed a moment of deep reflection before engaging in activity that puts life at risk. *Of course there are valid reasons for carrying concealed weapon, just not very many.

Da Troof February 1st, 2013 | 10:15am

Bob Girard: "In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution."

Couldn't agree more, though at the risk of inflaming passions here, I can't help wondering if such behavior also belies the carrier's need to compensate for certain, shall we say, "shortcomings"? Seriously.

Da Troof February 1st, 2013 | 10:17am

@Dolemite: Nice. :)

Andy February 1st, 2013 | 10:24am

@Dolemite, what a great idea! This is an issue that should probably be raised with AG Cuccinelli at every one of his gubenatorial campaign stops.

Dolemite February 1st, 2013 | 10:45am

Dear God the juxtaposition of the term 'Governor' and the name Cuccinelli in the same sentence makes me want to queue up at the Walmart AR15 counter.

Mike February 1st, 2013 | 11:08am

While the sentiment of this piece is spot-on, the comment about the driver's license seems a little off.

While a responsible driver who hasn't broken any laws can end up accidentally killing a person (for instance one who jumps out unseen in a poorly illumnated street). On the other hand, following just the first three rules of firearms safety prevents *all* accidental injuries or death from firearms use. (treat every gun as if it's loaded, always keep it pointed in a safe direction, know your target and beyond).

With a car, once it has momemtum, it reqiures intentional action to prevent it from colliding with other objects. A firearm doesn't have momenutm, you're either pulling the trigger, or it's 100% safe. To prevent accidental discharge, all you have to do is ensure that no one loads it and pulls the trigger.

Cyril February 1st, 2013 | 11:36am

@Andy

Actually, quite farfetched, as the rifle was semi-automatic: At most, it would have fired a single round, and cases of AR type weapons discharging due to jarred fire controls are near non-existent. Even more so with 308 caliber AR's, whose hammers are so beefy they are known to catch on the disconnector and FAIL TO FIRE when jarred, rather than disengage.

Liberalace February 1st, 2013 | 11:40am

Bad move by the moron in Kroger with the AR-15. Also, shows he does not know about which he is talking: It was not an "assault weapon." It requires a trigger pull for every bullet you want to discharge; same as a sidearm. Remember Orwell...words have meaning.

As for the ice cream afficionado, as long as the press strives first to entertain and secondly to inform, there will be people who exercise their act of narcissism to spew emesis to reporters in the exciting hopes of getting their names in the paper.

Change paragraph #10 to: "The guy in the store didn't scare me at all. But I began to think that every local nobody was rushing to their Facebook page to embellish their story in the hopes of making the papers. So I rushed home and posted"

I also like his inference that some immature goofball will waltz into a store with a rifle on an "NRA membership dare." Shows me where he is coming from.

R.I.P.: Charlton Heston

The Billionaire is the New Street Thug February 1st, 2013 | 11:48am

so why isn't this guys name made public? We have a right to know so that we can avoid people like him. It should be the price he pays for his freedom to scare the shit out of innocent victims.

The Cruncher February 1st, 2013 | 11:56am

Funny it mentions that the "hero" of our story was shopping for ice cream and chocolate syrup, being that obesity is the #2 cause of death for adults in the United States, and ALL firearms homicides being #7.

In other words, twelve people die from leading an unhealthy, obese lifestyle than do from guns. When you consider HALF of all gun deaths are from suicides, and an additional 50-90% of them are from guns procured illegally, it means for every death that involves a legal firearm, anywhere from FOURTY EIGHT to TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTY people die from being overweight. Try reading those statistics in any statist source of information who want to take away guns for "public safety" reasons.

By the way, these statistics are from 2000, and public health has gotten SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE since those numbers were derived, and gun deaths have actually gone down:

Obviously the Hook has a clear bias when it promotes a lifestyle that inevitably causes physical weakness, chronic health problems, and eventual death from organ failure rather than promote law abiding gun ownership, which is on average AT LEAST 50 times safer.

The statistics don't lie, fearful statists who find guns "icky" because of their faint constitution and weak mental state are.

HollowBoy February 1st, 2013 | 12:01pm

Agree with Jason. Someone who goes through the process to get a concealed carry permit, for whatever reason.is not in the same category with this jackass. He reminds me of those who burn the American flag to "prove a point" about the First Amendment. Totally idiotic.
Another thing, I wish people would stop comparing the right to own a firearm with owning a car, saying you should have to have a license. You do not have to have a license to own an automobile! You have to have a license to drive on public roadways. You can collect vehicles that are never driven. You can drive some clunker around your farm if you live out in the country. That analogy is apples and oranges.
Despite licensing, many more people die from auto accidents than from firearms. Too, people as a rule don't deliberately have car crashes. Murders are deliberate and knowing gun safety rules would be beside the point.
Personally I think AR type weapons are hideously ugly. A lever action Winchester 94 or a Remington 700 bolt action is a rifle with a classy look.

Gun Toting Liberal February 1st, 2013 | 12:19pm

I am in full agreement with Jason. I think common sense (the most uncommon of virtues!) was lacking here. How would this guy like his wife out shopping with the kids as someone comes walking in the store with a weapon? Stunts like this make it that much harder for responsible folks to not appear like gun toting whackos!

Dolemite February 1st, 2013 | 12:23pm

Comparison of firearms with autos is interesting. If Custer had had a couple SUV's with aggressive bumper profiles he probably could have beat the odds at Little Big Horn. There have been several local incidents of store front intrusion that could have ended quite badly if people had been in the way.

But the big difference is that cars are essential to the conduct of daily life in most of the US: getting to work, buying groceries, and taking the kids to the dentist. And any statistic cited regarding incidence of injury/death must also take into account the rate of incidence. There are millions of individual auto trips within an hour in Virginia alone. The ratio of AR15 outings to mayhem outcome is likely much, much higher.

Firearms are needed for hunting, dispatching rabid or dangerous animals, law enforement, war, and celebrating Balkan weddings. Other than that you can't argue a compelling reason to have one accompany your trip to the mall.

SGT Slaughter February 1st, 2013 | 12:33pm

I used to shoot squirrels with my .22....

Bill Marshall February 1st, 2013 | 12:56pm

The guy was a jerk, and obviously not very smart. If someone had pulled a gun and shot him, the jury would have let that person off because all he would have had to say was "the guy looked me in the eye, and started to raise his weapon and point it at me. I was 100% convinced he was going to start shooting" There is an old adage, "don't bend down to tie your shoes in a strawberry patch if you don't want buckshot in you backside.

There is an easy fix for this. Anyone who hates guns can pay about twenty bucks online and have labels made that say "no firearms allowed" and ask businesess they patronise to post them. if they refuse then shop elswhere. The gun advocates can pay and get labels made that say "firearms ARE allowed" and people could do the same thing. This would allow the free market to solve the issue. The constitution would be intact. Nobodies rights would be violated and its all good. The gun rights advocates who say that this makes for gun free zones and therefore more likely to be robbed or massacred MAY have a point but it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. People who go into the "no gun" stores would do so of their own free will and who are gun advocates to tell them them no? Besides, that sign would not apply to the security person or owner of the establishment.

So we can solve this problem without writing any new laws. without any gun affirmative action programs or gun diversity commissions, mental health tests or background checks.

Kroger can decide what they want to do to keep customers. Maybe they will make one store gun free and the other one not. So long as it is posted and THEIR choice it should all be good.

Michael February 1st, 2013 | 1:18pm

As my teenaged daughter said after her first experience with jury duty, "Stupidity should be a felony." Of course, we'd have to build a helluva lot more jails if it was.

Bruce February 1st, 2013 | 1:21pm

What this guy did,carrying an AR-15 into Kroger,was within his rights.It was also stupidly confrontational and in poor taste in light of the recent mass shootings in Co. and Ct.He obviously had no consideration for the fears and the feelings of the rest of the people in Kroger.It was a"in your face"type of display.It also sounds as if the police over reacted,pointing their guns at someone and making them kneel,when they had broken no law and harmed no one.When I exercise my second amendment right to bear arms,I do so concealed(with permit)as to not alarm anyone that might be frightened at the sight of firearms in public.Let's use some common sense people!

Michael February 1st, 2013 | 1:23pm

"With a car, once it has momemtum, it reqiures intentional action to prevent it from colliding with other objects. A firearm doesn't have momenutm, you're either pulling the trigger, or it's 100% safe. To prevent accidental discharge, all you have to do is ensure that no one loads it and pulls the trigger."

But once ia gun is loaded and fired, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent the bullet from hitting whatever is in its path. You can use the same approach to make sure you're never involved in an automobile accident: never start your car and drive it anywhere. Unless it's a collectible, a gun that is never loaded or fired serves no purpose; just like a car that is never driven.

barbara February 1st, 2013 | 1:36pm

We all need to do something like this. If we act as a group and make the public fear the sight of guns, then we can get them banned. It won't be long until the public begs for action.
Wow, wouldn't that be the PROGRESSSIVE wet dream?

Bruce February 1st, 2013 | 1:50pm

of course,out come the trolls.If you have nothing intelligent to say,kindly get out of the conversation.

bsp February 1st, 2013 | 1:51pm

I have seen it quoted by both sides that gun deaths occur more from suicide and from family/acquaintances. Not from a need to protect yourself from criminal acts, though these do occur to be sure. So, why is such a touted reason for carrying a weapon at all times, being armed in public; when the danger is way out of proportion to real events. It seems having more weapons carried about for "protection" only increases the odds of there use...by accident or over incidents where deadly force should not be an option (car accidents, arguments, suspected slights and personal broadband., (there is a reason the "old West" gun slinger/vigilante model was abandoned way back when...it didn't work to have everyone running around locked and loaded in public.....). I like my guns, enjoy shooting, it is my right to own and use them for enjoyment and for the potential use in defense of my home, family or person. But, that doesn't mean I need to parade around with them, expect "trouble" from every corner....its a lie that the statistics on crime and gun use don't support as needed. Advice, stay out of iffy areas, avoid aggressive people, be careful. If you don't look for trouble, it is unlikely to find you, it does happen but not in keeping with all the media reports, statements by advocacy groups on both sides, I am not worried about "assault weapons"(rifles), hand guns are much more dangerous, kill more people so if any weapon type needs stricter controls its these (they are fun to shoot as well). How do you keep guns from the unstable, the violent, the angry, the extremist, the criminal, the nuts known and unknown.... that's the question; and arming, carrying, brandishing is not the answer. Though there is nothing wrong with owning and enjoying guns and supporting the protection of the 2nd amendment, it is and should continue to be an important right and responsibility of all American citizens.

Peter Crampton February 1st, 2013 | 2:10pm

There is another scenario to consider. According to press reports, this man entered Kroger unarmed, and then went out to get his rifle and returned. What if he saw someone in Kroger that he wanted to shoot, went out and got his rifle, but could not find the person when he returned.

Maybe the 2nd Amendment comments are a smokescreen

barbara February 1st, 2013 | 2:16pm

Yes a smokescreen. We must ban all weapons NOW! Those crazy gun nuts are carrying guns in to public places, pretending to be flexing their 2nd Amendment rights, while really looking for unarmed citizens to shoot. Geeze, you Libbys are so smart. No wonder you have to take salt & sodas from us dummies for our own good. LOL

barbara February 1st, 2013 | 2:21pm

bsp, You are so right! Concealed carry permit carriers shoot themselves and others by accident several times a day in every state. Why, in my state alone, seventeen people were shot yesterday. That is almost one shooting per hour! You would all know about this if the media wasn't such a bunch of RIGHT WINGERS, keeping the truth from us.

Angel Eyes February 1st, 2013 | 2:35pm

There have been simultaneous similar grandstanding stunts of this sort in a number of places around the country, all by young doofuses who must have gotten their ideas from some common source, a blog or whatever. As a person of business who has a lobby open to the public, if some 22 year old guy with an AR15 walks into my lobby and I'm close to the gun I keep under the counter, I'm going to shoot him without waiting to see if he's "just exercising his 2nd. amendment rights". It wouldn't even cross my mind at the moment to think anything other than he intended to rob me. A gratuitous stunt like that is a good way to get yourself killed.

Mike February 1st, 2013 | 2:53pm

Michael,

You say "Unless it's a collectible, a gun that is never loaded or fired serves no purpose; just like a car that is never driven."... would you argue that for people who have an insurance policy against which they've filed no claims also serves no purpose?

Some might be of the opinion that there's a very unlikely chance that having a firearm in the future could serve some critical purpose and therefore, since the cost of responsible ownership right now is a relatively low premium, it is of some value to them to have it, knowing full well you'll likely never need to use it.

Dolemite February 1st, 2013 | 3:01pm

Barbara you're going into hysterics just like a WOMAN (not really nice to be unfairly trivialized is it?). BSP's point was more chill the hell out because if you've got enough sense to avoid trouble you really don't need to walk around armed. The alarmist is the one who feels the need to carry a weapon because ALL THOSE NEGROES AND MEXICANS HAVE GUNS AND THE LIBERALS ARE PAYING THEM TO KILL US.

Wow that all caps thing not only adds rhetorical weight it feels so good when demonizing others with them. Who knew? Barbara, your serve dear.

yosemite sam February 1st, 2013 | 3:15pm

To me what this kid did was similar to yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. Meant to cause panic and chaos, especially in light of recent events. The fact that he went back to his car was even more disturbing. If you had been witness to the false start into the store, only to see him go get the gun and walk back in, well, what in the hell would you think? While the pro-gun side would have you believe there is nothing to fear when a law-abiding citizen walks around with a rifle on their back, based on current events, what in the sam hell would most you think when you see this? We'd think an attempted massacre is about to happen. No easy answers, as we're certainly not going to do away with guns (though GOP/NRA rhetoric may have you running to your local gun shop based on their paranoia propoganda), but there has to be some common sense here.

Lastly, the scariest part is what could have happened if someone else with a happen deemed him a threat and tried to shoot him, catching bystanders, women, children, elders, in their crossfire. There is no logic to what this kid did, and quite frankly, should be illegal.

The Cruncher February 1st, 2013 | 3:23pm

Funny how statists who claim to be so caring and tolerant will 180 so quickly and turn on anyone who disagrees with them, including those who they so jump to defend against discrimination. Hey Dolemite, tell us what you think about Uncle Toms too (being any black folks who vote Republican) or self hating gays (being any gays who vote Republican).

Almost like they actually don't care about anyone, and their overtones of legislation "for the public good" are only as personal comfort for their cowardice, lack of self assurance, and inability to act outside of the group. Liberals are paralyzed when they are out of their hive mind, so if you like their ideas, I REALLY hope you like their ideas, or else you're next on the Stalinist purge.

shempdaddy February 1st, 2013 | 3:28pm

A clarification on the Wild West--it was not quite the free-for-all it was made out to be, commerce dictated otherwise. Is it a criminal act to brandish a firearm, and if so, did what this man did rise to that level. Virginia code states it is a Class 1 misdemeanor to "point, hold, or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another..." I know you can open carry if you legally own the gun, can concealed carry with a permit--but are you allowed to brandish your weapon in public, and did his actions constitute that? I guess it depends on what a reasonable person(jury or judge to determine) would decide is inducing fear. I guess he could have carried his rifle in a case to avoid the appearance of brandishing a firearm without infringing on his 2nd amendment right while being responsible. My guess is responsibility was not his aim.

Barbara, don't bring fairy tales into a discussion this important. 17 concealed handgun permit owners did not shoot themselves in your state yesterday. There wasn't 17 such accidents nationwide yesterday.

Or post proof when you make such a silly claim.

Cyril February 1st, 2013 | 3:54pm

@Peter

If his mind works anything like mine, he probably left and re-entered after establishing that there were no rent-a-cops in the store. After all, guns don't kill people; security guards who barely passed DCJS do...

Dolemite February 1st, 2013 | 4:11pm

Cruncher I'm guessing that you feel you made a point. Now exactly what was it? Was it:
(a) Stop picking on Barbara because she's nice to others and rational too?
(b) I, Cruncher, didn't get the lampoon nature of your post?
(c) Those dang Uncle Toms and GOP Gays
(d) I, Cruncher, am an irrational Troll desparate to get a rise out of someone by alluding to Stalinist purges in the near future?
(e) A coded message sent to all the other non-Statists: "Meet at Tom Black's we'll have a gay old time tonight as a group. Gosh I've been so unself-assured of late Can't wait!"

I'm thinking B, D, & E

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 4:41pm

The real story here is Kroger discriminates against people who exercise their constitutional rights. If Kroger wanted to ban someone for walking into their store while being black (or asian, etc.) it would be illegal, even though it is their private property. At the same time, walk into their store while being someone who chooses to exercise their rights, and they will ban you forever on that basis from their property. Now if they want to prohibit firearms on their property that's one thing, but to ban someone who hadn't broken any laws from ever setting foot on their property with or without a firearm, that is unfair and discriminatory and just plain wrong.

JT February 1st, 2013 | 5:33pm

Are there any eyewitnesses of the Kroger event who can say if this guy was actually practicing the rules of gun safety? The guy in this other recent case in Utah clearly was not, despite being ex-military and a concealed carry permit holder:

Rock on Mr. Johnny Sportcoat! Someone needs to stand up to these bullies and cowards. There's no excuse for this kind of behavior and intimidation.

This little turkey wanted to "make a statement" about what a tough defender of his "rights" he is - by checking inside first to make sure there's nobody armed who might question him. What a little chicken. How manly of him to walk around the grocery store and threaten people by carrying a loaded .308.

Is he that afraid of being "mugged" or "assulted" in the aisles of Kroger? Really? What a scared little baby. I say this as a gun owner.

Stronger language would be more appropriate to describe this young "man" but does seem to violate the TOS.

C'ville Native February 1st, 2013 | 6:28pm

Gun Control will only keep the mentally unstable and incompetent from having them, if you fear gun control, you might be mentally unstable and incompetent. Unfortunately common sense is a rare trait in many (judging from some of the comments above, quite obvious) and we must now pass and enforce laws of common sense.

I have to agree with this statement about the loudest of gun owners out there who are being so ignorant: "In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution," says Girard.

Many of them I think the gun and the need for a large assault style rifle is an extension of their ego or other appendage and I am not thinking of arms or legs here.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 7:16pm

And many on the other side of things have appendage envy because they have no appendage whether they have a dick or not

Jason February 1st, 2013 | 7:19pm

Hmm, just checked in from this morning’s post I made, a lot of good points and some really bad ones too. A lot of stone throwing as well. Maybe I can add some food for thought.

First, again what this kid did was completely foolish…the police should be commended for keeping their heads and not shooting him.

Second, what Bob Girard did was not very well thought out either. That could have gone south on him pretty quick and turned this from a stupid situation to a tragic one.

Now let’s talk guns and the banning or not of such things. If I honestly thought ending all production today and throwing every single gun out there in a giant blast furnace would end all killings and save innocent lives especially that of a child. I would do it, not happily but I would. That however is not going to fix this nor is it reality. In fact, you will never really fix this 100%. Someone bent on killing and destruction will find a way. It is mental illness issue as much as it is a gun issue even more so in my mind.

“Assault rifles” and high capacity magazines. I will bore you guys with a quick lesson because no matter what side of the fence you are on a little education is not a bad thing.
Semi auto rifles with an intermediate cartridge fall in this category. Couple this with a high capacity magazine, will such a thing allow a person bent on killing help him do the job more efficiently? Of course, the ability to lay down large amounts of fire on target/s is what is known as a force multiplier. It is why they were invented in the first place. This can also be done with many weapons with smaller capacities rather than just one.
Will banning such things keep mass killings from happening? No, the guns are tools. Yes they do expedite the process of mass murder. However, if a deranged person wants to leave “his” mark on society, he will find a way.

I notice out West, whenever there is an arsonist and a wild fire, the media will go out of its way to not give them any or very little credit for the fires. Who remembers the names of the shooters? How about the victims?

Linking data bases and including mental illness in that is a good start. Enforcing and getting tougher on current gun laws may help too.

In the end, this isn’t just “gun violence” it is violence of the depraved and mentally ill. We need to educate ourselves on both issues in order to move ahead.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 7:21pm

@someone - you may have the right, BUT one has to use common sense. The man carrying a LOADED assault rifle into Kroger has NO common sense. Had I seen that, I would have IMMEDIATELY called 911 and reported a man with a gun.

And btw, Kroger has EVERY right to ban weapons. It's a private business and GOOD FOR THEM. More businesses SHOULD BAN WEAPONS on premises.

SERIALCRUSHER February 1st, 2013 | 7:24pm

A bunch a bleeding hearts libirals, ban the knives they kill more people than guns and drunk drivers more than that, I love my rights and my guns! I am proud to be an American, I also love my country but some of you people make me sick and ashamed that you live here too. Increase the laws to automatic death penalty for drunk driving, drug dealing, assault in any way shape or form and all known gang members shot on sight and left there to rot. You people care to much about the criminals and nothing about the people they hurt and the way they make our country look. This was Gods land you took away the time to pray in schools, took away the pledge to our flag alow babys to be killed before they have a chance to live and you call me "mentally unstable" C'ville Native and make insane coments like "We must ban all weapons NOW! " barbara, like that will stop the criminals! Think about what you are about say before you speak. Wile you fight and bicker about what YOU think is right take a step back and remember why we are all here, the gun won us this land it also gave you the right to say what you want, right or wrong! Stopped tha Nazi's from taking over the world. Hitler took away the peoples rights by twisting things to fit what he wanted, some of you are doing the same thing! Bad people do bad things and some people can be stopped from becomming bad if the punishment is not worth the right, the rest are not stable and should be in the care of the doctors, the Virginia tech shooter was know to be unstabe way was he on the streets? There were people who knew why are they not held accountable? Do not be ignorant, blame the person or persons! Take care of your fellow man, woman and child! Only love and a strong justice system can stop the killings!

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 7:24pm

Will the Hook delete "unverified and/or potentially libelous comment" by non-resident taxpayer in which the unnamed individual is accused of threatening people with a gun, i.e. "brandishing a firearm" when the individual was never even charged with such, let alone convicted? Maybe that's why they won't tell us his name, so they can libel and slander all day long without fear of reprisal. Or maybe because he was on an assignment. Guess we'll never know for sure :o)

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 7:38pm

Folks, Sandy Hook was staged. Adam Lanza was a patsy who got his head blown off by the same folks who blew the head off those kids. I've seen the footage of the man with the gun in the woods directly outside the school who claimed "I didn't do it" (didn't do what?), was put in the FRONT seat of the police car, released, and then had the magical powers to make his very existence disappear entirely from mainstream media coverage. Maybe you haven't seen this footage because you get your news of the t.v. an mainstream newspaper reports such as this one, but the rest of us have a brain, we're not stupid,they might still be fooling some of you fluorideheads with their Operation Gladio's but they're not fooling us. Columbine: staged, mutiple shooters reported intially and never again. Va Tech: Staged, multiple shooters reported intially, and never again. Links to Va Tech's CIA student recruitment site taken down immediately after shooting, pictures of Cho in uniform with fellow Marines never shown in mainstream news or television. I could go on but I'd run out of space

WhoaNelly February 1st, 2013 | 7:49pm

@Barbara.
You said “We all need to do something like this. If we act as a group and make the public fear the sight of guns, then we can get them banned. It won't be long until the public begs for action.
Wow, wouldn't that be the PROGRESSSIVE wet dream?"

If we all did this Barbara, we would get used to the sight of guns, and with a heavily armed citizenry, I assure you that crime would drop dramatically.
PROGRESSIVE...seems like every time a progressive politician passes a law, a little bit of liberty disappears. Progressives seem to practice the complete opposite of the actual definition of the word.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 7:49pm

Aurora: Staged, suspect under psychiatric care of an Army mind control psychologist on record, suspect under DARPA contract to study mind control, reports of fellow inmates incarcerated with suspect stating that he claimed the Army had him believing he was under their protection as part of the contract completely omitted from mainstream news. The words "Sandy Hook" were the only works legible on the map in the Batman Dark Knight Rises movie as they listed out the first area to be attacked. As if seeing him drugged out of his mind at his preliminary hearing days after his arrest on live television wasn't enough

C'ville Native February 1st, 2013 | 7:57pm

Assault weapons were banned in this country from 1994 - 2004, the worst mass shootings have occurred since the ban. Give me one good reason why anyone who is not law enforcement or military should have a gun like that, one good reason.

Why would one need "the ability to lay down large amounts of fire on target/s is what is known as a force multiplier"? Only in war or law enforcement if needed for prison riots etc. I can tell you what an AR-15 did to Noah Pozner at close range, blew off his jaw and his hand. I don't remember the shooters, I remember the victims.

You can effectively defend your home with a handgun, not an AR-15.

And the trouble with current "gun laws", there are none, especially in the Commonwealth of Virginia - isn't that obvious if one can legally walk into a grocery store with a loaded AR-15 and not be charged with a crime?!

Want to help mental health - we have an empty hospital - Blue Ridge and part empty one in Staunton - Western State - perhaps we need to look to fundraisers for Region 10 to have an in-patient hospital in this area and more resources to treat the mentally ill, instead of having them go in and out of ACRJ on a regular basis.

Criminals Blog February 1st, 2013 | 7:58pm

*Notice Alert*
Krogers in Charlottesville, VA has recently become an easy target...

WhoaNelly February 1st, 2013 | 8:02pm

C'ville...an intruder with a firearm enters your home. I have more good reasons, but you only asked for one. If you are refering to the clip size...if an intruder enters your home with a firearm, you would hope your clip is bigger than his.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 8:02pm

@Someone - have your tinfoil hat on way too tight, eh?

Staged? I dare you to say that to the parents of those dead. You don't have the balls to.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 8:02pm

@Someone - have your tinfoil hat on way too tight, eh?

Staged? I dare you to say that to the parents of those dead. You don't have the guts to.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 8:03pm

@Someone - have your tinfoil hat on way too tight, eh?

Staged? I dare you to say that to the parents of those dead.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 8:05pm

sorry for the triple post.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 8:05pm

I agree C-ville Native, we need to make sure these folks who believe Harvard studies demonstratating brain damage in children consuming fluoride is a good reason to not consume fluorinated tap water never have the ablility to defend themself when the government comes to lock them up and torture them some more. Same goes for those crazies who have mercury fillings replaced with composites, god forbid one of them gets a gun. And as for those folks who think 9/11 was an inside job, are still worried about COINTELPRO when the government says they stopped it, lets just lock them up in Western State and throw away the key! Oh, and don't forget to forcibly drug those who inherited 10 thousand dollars and spent it all over the course of two years! They're certifiably crazy!

C'ville Native February 1st, 2013 | 8:08pm

@Someone you are giving our government far too much credit. If they couldn't keep Watergate? Really?

If you think your pathetic delusions deserve solid arguments instead of mockery or even a single moment of anyone's time here, you are sorely mistaken...

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 8:11pm

Jkld you have neither the guts nor the balls to look into anything I've told you about. My head is screwed on straight and I wish the same could be said about you.

C'ville Native February 1st, 2013 | 8:11pm

Whoa Nelly? - my spouse is a former Marine - he is a better shot and I hold sharp shooter metals. I am not a bit scared (even with a smaller clip) to face down most of the idiots in Albemarle County who have no former training.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 8:15pm

C'ville Native, you don't speak for everyone else, you don't even speak for yourself because you just had to respond to say my comments aren't worth a response. And to be honest, it looks like you're more afraid that other folks on this forum might look into what I have written, than anything else

WhoaNelly February 1st, 2013 | 9:08pm

@c'ville, not everyone interested in home protection is a marine or sharpshooter.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 9:16pm

@someone - our family knows of people who lost children there. YOU are the one who has their tin-foil hat on WAY too tight.

You're probably the type that still thinks the earth is flat. Sad, you are. VERY VERY sad.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 9:19pm

And some intrested in home protection can even spell medal so let's cut them a break

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 9:20pm

@someone - you still don't have the balls to tell ANY of those parents - either from Aurora of Newtown, that it didn't happen. People like you are the sick ones. Truly SICK.

Andy February 1st, 2013 | 9:21pm

@Someone - hopefully the new push for expanded mental health programs will bring you some help

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 9:22pm

When Galileo said the earth was round and not flat they called him crazy and a heretic. Turns out he was right, jkld. People like you are the stupid ones. Truly STUPID

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 9:23pm

Andy, hopefully computers capable of downloading intelligence into the human brain can bring you some assistance as well.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 9:25pm

@someone - like I said, you don't have the balls to walk up to a parent and tell them to their face that they're lying. Not when that parent is at the grave.

As a parent myself, YOU are totally sick. People like YOU are the ones who give the GOP their well earned reputation.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 9:26pm

@someone - at least Galileo had intelligence.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 9:32pm

Jkld, I didn't say it "didn't happen". You're mistaking me for the CIA straw-man operation all over youtube saying it "never happened", quite predictably I might add. I'm saying it "didn't happen the way you heard it happen". In other words, yeah the kids got their heads blown off but it wasn't by Adam Lanza it was by the guy caught on camera in the woods with a rifle who, according to initial news reports from the local news outlet in Newtown said "I didn't do it" after being caught with a gun outside a school where twenty children were murdered, and then was taken into custody, seated in the front of a squad car, subsequently released, and whose identity was never revealed or even treated as a relevant detail after that, in fact this very occurence was sent down the memory hole of 1984 as if it never even happened, unless of course you listen to Alex Jones in which case it certaintly did happen and certainly was covered up with willfull decision and precision. Deal with it

The Kroger incident reminds me of guy who wrote ""My AK47 is neither registered nor illegal, but it is loaded and ready to rumble." on the Free Speech Monument downtown. Kroger boy seems to have wanted to go down as a martyr though while the monument comment also included "I'm entertaining serious thoughts of going down to the local abortion clinic on Hydraulic Road, killing the guards, entering the facility and summarily executing the babykiller." Maybe he had a martyrdom wish too if he wrote about those thoughts in public. What's this world coming to?

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 10:21pm

jkld, the first responders to the staged 9/11 suit filed a class action lawsuit against the government for knowing the dust was toxic but stating publicly "the air is safe to breathe" Christine Todd Whitman. Pathetic try. You make me want to vomit all over you.

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 10:31pm

And Newtowon Connecticut is CIA central, there were more shootings in the vicinity of Newtown immediately following the school shootings, never made the media cause they could be linked to a Sandy Hook cover up. Don't bother looking into anything I say though, that'd turn your whole world upside down

Someone February 1st, 2013 | 10:34pm

Or right side up. Take your pick.

John Walton Giuliano February 1st, 2013 | 10:48pm

PEOPLE ARE WRITING ON CHALKBOARDS! WHAT'S THIS WORLD COMING TO!???

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 10:59pm

@someone - as a former first responder (many moons ago), I and the rest of the country believe the truth of the first responders on the scene rather than your lameass sick self and those like you. You and your ilk are the kind that harrass honest people because of your mental illness.

Sorry that you are ill. Prehaps a stay in one of the state hospitals might be advisable until you are well enough to rejoin civilized society again.

The Cruncher February 1st, 2013 | 11:13pm

Well, Michael, I salute that you have the fortitude to admit that you are a jelly spined coward who cannot handle the idea that you need to rely on the trust of those around you to go on living from one shadow cringing day to the next, and so therefore want license to dictate their lives. I wish all statists were as honest as you, so those of us who believe in our fellow man could exclude you from polite society the honest way.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 11:22pm

@someone - you must be a very sick person to hate and be so mentally ill. You really do need to see a doctor to help you face reality.

Dennis W February 1st, 2013 | 11:44pm

These gun people want what they want and they don't care about the rights of others.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 11:45pm

@someone - and with a very juvenile mind as well. Again, you must be a very sad, lonely, and pathetic person to hate so much and be so mentally ill.

jkld February 1st, 2013 | 11:59pm

1. A first responder does not do what they do for recognition. they do it because of duty and honor. You couldn't last an hour doing it, considering your juvenile behavior.
2. Not my call. Space limitation? Fine. That's their call. So? Big deal. Again, we honor those who fell in our own way.

You are a very sad and sick individual. You obviously don't have the courage to do anything but wear tinfoil hats.

We had a 10 code for people like you.

10-96.

Someone February 2nd, 2013 | 12:16am

The government honors those who fell by shipping thier bodies to China to be melted down into steel. That's pretty darn disturbing to me, pal.

jkld February 2nd, 2013 | 12:18am

10-96

Someone February 2nd, 2013 | 12:40am

Oh, what an October that was. I'll never forget it. :o)

Amanda February 2nd, 2013 | 1:43am

Rightly, there has been universal and nearly unanimous condemnation for the idiotic method the 20-something chose to make his point about the 2nd Amendment.

But Mr. Girard is no "hero". His contact with the young man, past his intial comments, could have goaded him into irritation resulting in tripping him off to shoot Mr. Girard or someone else. The police are trained and much better equipped to deal with the situation than a local musician.

Finally, I find this statement by Girard is disturbing; ""In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution," says Girard.

I think the Mr. Girard is another deluded Progressive. I doubt most Americans believe the motivating factor in carrying a concealed weapon is narcissism. Self-defense is a serious matter - and in some cities in America, particularly Obama's Chicago, you'll be damn glad to have a way to defend yourself should someone threaten your life or property.

Still, I hope that should Mr. Girard ever find himself in a situation like the poor children in Connecticut or the movie theater in Colorado, that a "narcissist" would be there to try to stop the assailant in his tracks before a murder's bullet would kill him.

Guardian February 2nd, 2013 | 2:00am

"In my humble opinion, carrying a weapon, concealed or open, is a narcissistic exercise that says as much about the owner's personality as it does about the convoluted interpretation of the constitution," says Girard.
Well I say in my less than humble opinion that Girad is probably just another weak knee, left wing-nut liberal with no idea what the Constitution of the United States means. Anyone who fears weapons is much more of a narcissist than those that carry for protection. The irrational fear of weapons has been correctly described as "a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity".

also curious February 2nd, 2013 | 2:01am

@ Amanda, "ill, I hope that should Mr. Girard ever find himself in a situation like the poor children in Connecticut or the movie theater in Colorado, that a "narcissist" would be there to try to stop the assailant in his tracks before a murder's bullet would kill him."

Isn't that exactly what many people, Girard included, fear might happen in a situation like the one in Kroger a few days ago? You did read the article didn't you?

"Days after the encounter, Girard reflects on all the ways this apparent "protest" could have gone wrong, from another shopper with a concealed weapon thinking he could prevent a mass shooting by killing the man, to the police overreacting.

"The downside of an incident like this is potentially horrible," he says."

Amanda February 2nd, 2013 | 3:33am

@also curious: I disagree. For example, if the principal/superintendent in Newtown had been armed when she first encountered the gunman entering the school, she may have been able to kill him on the spot, saving the children's lives. Of course, she could have gotten shot and killed just as she did -- but an armed protector at least gives a CHANCE of protection.

Why some people choose to be unarmed sitting ducks and want others in schools and such to be the same is beyond me.

Someone February 2nd, 2013 | 4:02am

The Kroger at Emmet Street is right up against antennae that must house the radiation of at least ten cell phone base stations. That's dangerous to the brain, folks!!!

I. Publius February 2nd, 2013 | 7:35am

Thank you, Amanda. Nice to see some common sense in this discussion.

Jooles February 2nd, 2013 | 8:19am

"but an armed protector at least gives a CHANCE of protection."

A chance of protection against an unlikely event but a higher chance of accident and human error during the course of everyday life at schools.

Nervamae February 2nd, 2013 | 8:34am

Amen to Terry Mahoney. Thanks!

Ice pick February 2nd, 2013 | 11:09am

I don't know who this Girard genius is but whenever I see someone carrying an AR-15 I always tell them what they are doing is bullshit. When did the Hook start printing fiction?

resident February 2nd, 2013 | 11:59am

One in every 23 adults living in Virginia has a concealed carry permit. Statistically, this means that there were 6 armed citizens closely watching the intents of this man. There was no panic. no "wild west shootouts", and I see nothing odd about Bob speaking to him about the rifle he was carrying (guns are a large part of our culture here with i in 2 homes having a firearm and 1 in 3 personally owns a firearm). I have a greater fear being in a place that is "gun-free" than I do at a place where people openly and conceal carry simply because criminals prefer unarmed victims.

"You say "Unless it's a collectible, a gun that is never loaded or fired serves no purpose; just like a car that is never driven."... would you argue that for people who have an insurance policy against which they've filed no claims also serves no purpose?

Some might be of the opinion that there's a very unlikely chance that having a firearm in the future could serve some critical purpose and therefore, since the cost of responsible ownership right now is a relatively low premium, it is of some value to them to have it, knowing full well you'll likely never need to use it."

In that case, the purpose of the firearm is still to load and fire it at some future date if circumstances dictate. That doesn't alter my point about the car:gun analogy being flawed.

"Well, Michael, I salute that you have the fortitude to admit that you are a jelly spined coward who cannot handle the idea that you need to rely on the trust of those around you to go on living from one shadow cringing day to the next, and so therefore want license to dictate their lives. I wish all statists were as honest as you, so those of us who believe in our fellow man could exclude you from polite society the honest way."

WTF? What did I write that this is any way responsive to? What did I write that could possibly be interpreted as supporting a "statist" ideology. I made two posts -- the first was a joke and the second was questioning the aptness of an analogy. I have not taken a position on the second amendment, statism, or anything else that you like to troll about. I did indirectly call the gun-toter's actions stupid, but so have lots of gun-rights supporters.

smelly socks February 2nd, 2013 | 2:26pm

The Kroger at Rio Hill had a period of time about five years ago when cops would walk through the store regularly, (anyone remember?), then that slowed. Also "Barnes Ignoble" book store. I suppose they'll ramp it back up.

girlygirl February 2nd, 2013 | 3:15pm

I wonder how many of the strident gun rights advocates who want NO registration or background checks are also advocates of stricter VOTER ID laws? Wayne LaPierre is one. What a bunch of hypocrites.

I. Publius February 2nd, 2013 | 3:28pm

girlygirl, go look up what a "straw man" argument is.

You just made the dumbest straw man argument I've ever seen. First, you make asinine assumptions about people who support gun rights; then you "wonder" how many of them support voter ID; then you assume that there must be people who hold the views you just made up from whole cloth; then you call these imaginary people hypocrites.

Stupid people like you shouldn't be allowed to vote. But I have no doubt that it's people like you who gave us Obummer (twice).

girlygirl February 2nd, 2013 | 4:35pm

I know what a straw man argument this is. Before you continue, perhaps you might wish to look at the positions of your esteemed gun advocates representatives.... Wayne LaPierre... Delegate Bob Marshall.... Rick Perry... Rick Scott... there is a very long list of visible leaders in this country who fell all over themselves trying to restrict voting rights in response to almost non-existent fraud but are ready for a revolution when reasonable people propose that there should be background checks and licensure of firearms.

I. Publius February 2nd, 2013 | 5:01pm

"I know what a straw man argument THIS IS."

The rest of your post was just a continuation of your earlier stupidity. But at least you got that part right.

repeal the ban February 2nd, 2013 | 6:20pm

Someone - I don't know if you're being serious or just having fun with us, but since it requires no work on my part I'll offer this:

@ Prowler,
What I mean by "outsider" are those who live outside and are unfamilar with the traditions, customs and heritage of our region. While we have always shown hospitality towards these strangers, nothing riles us up more than them commenting about our "accents", ways of life, etc....They tend to forget that since they came to our parts (or forum nowadays), they are the ones that have the accents, odd lifestyles, etc..., not us. And guns are and always have been part of our daily lives.

resident February 2nd, 2013 | 7:19pm

@ girlygirl
You stated :I wonder how many of the strident gun rights advocates who want NO registration or background checks are also advocates of stricter VOTER ID laws? Wayne LaPierre is one. What a bunch of hypocrites."

American Citizens have the Constitutional Right to own and bear arms. And criminals not knowing who are armed and who are not is one of the most effective deterrents, which is erased when gun owners are identified by registration. (Wasn't that long ago when the Newspapers listed the names and addresses of gun owners in New York because gun registration is considered "public records").

One of the most cherished rights of Americans is that we can vote for our representatives. However, whenever voting fraud takes place, it undermines our Constitution. (The NAACP argues that voting fraud does not occur, even though one of their administrators is still serving time for being caught doing just that). In the 2008 elections, someone casted a vote in my name, stealing from me this fundamental right. So yes, we support strict voter ID laws. We want everyone who is eligible to vote to do so, and prevent those who are not from doing so.

Gasbag Self Ordained Expert February 2nd, 2013 | 7:49pm

smelly socks, Barnes & Noble still has an off duty city cop in their store every night. It's hard to tell when they are there because some drive their personal car to Barnes & Noble, and some drive their take-home city car.

prowler February 2nd, 2013 | 8:43pm

Resident,
I might be an outsider too because I was born in Va and left these parts and was raised in the Deep South and came back here. People always comment on my accent but I take it as a compliment and I would take "outsider" as a compliment too. I am the devil's advocate you might say. Guns are a part of my life too but I wouldn't take one inside the grocery store to prove a point.

Really? February 2nd, 2013 | 8:52pm

So now, the freaks who just want to kill people only need to enter the designated target area calmly (movie theater, diner, grocery store), with their weapon slung over their shoulder, hang out and act normal until everyone chills, then POW....hoist that weapon and start shooting. Perfect, hide in plain sight.

Ice pick February 2nd, 2013 | 9:37pm

Really the guy carrying the gun into Kroger did all "anti-gunners" a favor...... if all stores carried a sign at the door saying" no guns allowed "....problem solved.

Even the DUMP says no guns allowed.

The Cruncher February 2nd, 2013 | 10:25pm

Michael,

There was a Michael Solowski or someone who made a differing comment. I didn't mean you, sorry about the confusion.

resident February 2nd, 2013 | 11:16pm

@ Prowler,
You ain't an outsider at all. I guess what I mean are those folks from up north and far west that has more of a socialist ideology. Down here, we are the ones that "clings to God and guns", where up there they teach that sensitivity and tolerance ideology for everything that aint Christian, White or traditional.

Now I dont think that the guy had the sense of a duck by taking his rifle into a grocery store to make a point. Krogers dont legislate nor do they posess executive powers to influence laws, therefore the only thing he managed to accomplish was to give fodder to the anti gun crowd.

Dennis W February 3rd, 2013 | 1:47am

When I said these gun people want what they want and don't care about the rights of others I was referring to their anti-social nature, not their narcissism.

Mike February 3rd, 2013 | 8:16am

If I were there I might have had to "unconceal"..Idiots like this are not helping.He is lucky that the police officers are well trained or it might have gone really bad.Always(in my own opinion) thought that open carry was pretty lame.I was in line behind a guy at Advance Auto who was toting a pistol in a zero retention holster on his belt in a place where it would have been so easy to take it from him.STUPID!!!! I know I wouldn't grab it,but I dont know about all the others that were eyeing it....

Girlygirl February 3rd, 2013 | 8:21am

@resident. I am sorry that happened to your vote and I can understand that you would like to see your right to vote protected from fraud by putting simple protections in place. By the same token, I imagine you understand that the loved ones of the 3,000 or so people who fall victim to gun violence every month might also like to see some simple protections that will help mitigate risk to human life. That is all I am saying. By the way , I AM a native Virginian who has been around firearms my entire life and the majority if people like me are agreeing that we need to do something. Too many innocents are being killed and, if you are thoughtful, which I believe you are, you will admit that the current system is not working so well for these victims and their families.

Mike February 3rd, 2013 | 8:22am

Forgot to add correction-An AR-15 is usually in .223 caliber.An AR-10 is in .308

resident February 3rd, 2013 | 12:22pm

@ Girlygirl,
According to the FBI, violent crime has decreased 15.5% since the expiration of the Clinton Gun Ban. Blunt objects (baseball bats, pipes, etc) kill more people annually than every type of rifle (including your so-called assault rifles) and shotguns combined. (During the Ban, violent crime increased 15.7%. It may also be interesting to note that Columbine occurred during the ban).

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 8% of all violent crime involved a firearm of any type. Less than 0.5% of rape involved a firearm and only 5% of aggravated assault involved a firearm.

Both the FBI and BOJ states that drugs and gang activity accounts for 78% of all homicides, violent crimes and assaults. These criminals already disregard the 20,000 gun laws now on the books, and it would be senseless to expect them to obey one more added to them.

If you are truly concerned about reducing violent crime, then you must focus on the problem, which are drugs.

Girlygirl February 3rd, 2013 | 1:31pm

I appreciate a well reasoned argument and I appreciate that you haven't let our discussion devolve into something unpleasant. I ll think about your comments and hope you will think on mine i agree that drugs are a part of the problem. Have a good Sunday.

resident February 3rd, 2013 | 2:25pm

@Girlygirl,
Yes, I also appreciate the calm tone and personally, I find that insults and sophomoric retorts reflects poorly upon the credibility of the poster. I do not expect a person to change their opinions just because of a comment on a public forum as this, but rather to be a valuable tool in understanding an opposing person's reasoning for their beliefs. Unfortunately, because the conversations are not physical and therefore emotions are not considered, it appears that one tends to forget that they are communicating with a person whom they would not dare to speak in a manner so commonly present on such forums.

Dennis W February 3rd, 2013 | 9:50pm

Resident: Those FBI statistics can't be trusted. They review a very small sample of case as they are adjudicated, not as they are charged. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel printed the results of their investigative journalism last August.

really? February 4th, 2013 | 7:13am

I just wish this had happened at Whole Foods instead.

resident February 4th, 2013 | 8:01am

@ Dennis,
A person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is the foundation of our judicial system and assures that justice is administered rather than vigilantism. Unfortunately the newspapers and links influence the public opinion and thus undermines the processes set by our founding fathers.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel nor any other news agency possesses the qualifications or authority to investigate crimes; only to report on the investigation. The FBI and related government agencies are the ones responsible for the collecting and maintaining such statistics and does so without bias, third party influence or public opinions.

Dennis W February 4th, 2013 | 9:54am

The Journal-Sentinel investigated FBI procedures in developing their statistics. In an overview, FBI statistics in each of the last five years (2007 - 2012) are based on less than 1% of the precincts that report data to them. During that five year period they audited less than 4% of police departments.

They audit on a publicly known schedule. In other words, a city will know years in advance when they will be audited. Of the 30 largest cities nearly two thirds have not been audited in the last five years. Six departments of those largest cities have never been audited since the FBI began auditing in 1997.

The FBI audited the Milwaukee County Police Department last year. Milwaukee County has a population of just under 1 million people (952,532 estimated for 2011 by the US Census Bureau) and had nearly 600 thousand crimes charged in the year preceding the audit. The FBI conducted its audit on just 60 cases.

They concluded the crime rate was going down. The Journal Sentinel found more than 500 serious assaults, which included stabbings and beatings, were misreported as minor crimes over a recent three-year period . They found another 800 assaults followed the same pattern. when compared Milwaukee police crime data. In my own review of crime statistics I found the murder rate in Milwaukee has steady risen between 2009 and 2012. All of this was missed in the FBI audit and summary conclusions.

The Journal-Sentinel presented a suggestion the FBI does not conduct through investigations to maintain a positive relationship with local police chiefs. The chiefs can then report crime is going down and make their mayors look good. It's a suggestion I consider as very possible.

The report was printed August 18, 2012 and can found at JSOnline or by putting "Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel" in a search engine. I used Yahoo! but I imagine one could find it using Google or Bing. You're welcome to read the article and form your own opinion.

Kevin February 4th, 2013 | 10:01am

The Commonwealth's Attorney should charge this jerk with domestic terrorism.

smelly socks February 4th, 2013 | 12:51pm

I had a friend who once stole two Tylenol from a Kroger, and he received a lifetime ban from all Krogers nationwide for that.

People have the right to be stupid. Had this guy started aiming his rifle at people, you might have a point, but all he did was walk around with it -- which in the state of Virginia is legal. You might not like what he was doing, you might have been scared by it, but if it is not a crime then it should not be punished. If you want to make it a crime, talk to your representatives.

I would rather not have poorly thought out laws being passed to prevent this sort of nonsense from happening again. Frankly, as bizarre as this guy's behavior was, I do not see any sensible way to legislate against it. Do you want to outlaw hunting with a rifle? Do you want to outlaw carrying a rifle into a grocery store, so that hunters leave their guns in their car unattended? Do you want to outlaw specific kinds of rifles or rifles with particular features (this did not really accomplish much between 1994-2004)?

Personally, I would rather that we not spend so much time focusing on rifles when it comes to the gun control debate, because we do not have a problem with rifles in America. As this guy demonstrated, a rifle -- especially one that is "military style" -- attracts quite a bit of attention, which is why criminal gangs do not carry them around. Don't let yourself be distracted by scary-looking guns; the real problem is small, easily concealed, low-calibre handguns that are frequently stolen and commonly used by criminals. What happened in Newtown was an exceedingly rare tragedy; what happened days beforehand, when a man was shot in the head in broad daylight with a handgun on a New York City street is an unfortunately common crime.

Now, as for people who point to the recent drop in violent crime, it is worth noting that there is more evidence that the ban on tetraethyl lead caused that drop than that the presence or absence of guns had anything to do with it. Childhood lead exposure has a causal relationship with adult crime, and there is little question that tetraethyl lead was increasing the exposure of children -- especially in large cities, with high concentration of automobiles.

D

billysixpack February 4th, 2013 | 3:59pm

Just got back in town and trying to catch up with this story. This is what I have so far.
Feel free to correct.

1. Guy walks into Kroger. (probably checking to see if there are any 'NO GUNS' signs)
2. Guy grabs his AR15, shoulders it, and walks back in or in front of store.
3. Gobs of people call 911
4. The guy in this story realizes what is going on and says something smart to the guy.
5. Cops show up and draw down on this guy.
6. Cops realize that 'Hey, it ain't no crime' and let the guy go.

So the guy in this story who is untrained realizes that a shouldered weapon is not a threat and the young man is just making a statement but the Cops show up, draw weapons, make the man do the felony duck walk and create a scene from SWAT? Is this correct?

I suppose pit maneuvering a truck with a gun rack is perfectly ok also?

Dennis W February 4th, 2013 | 4:02pm

D

True it is legal in Virginia for someone carry a rifle into a grocery store. True this type of behavior scares people. It would scare me if I saw it.

There is social decorum where somethings are just not done. In those circumstances there is no need for laws because citizens are respectful to others. When this decorum is broken we get agitated at the offender, not immediately pass a law against. The behavior persists and then we think of sanctions.

Some yo-yo wants to walk around with a loaded weapon because he thinks it's his right and he doesn't care all that much if he scares others. His response to the fear of others his behavior engenders is they shouldn't feel that way. Of course he has some notion he is being made to feel ashamed by concealing his weapon because the world is all about him and what he wants.

Guns have a place, but they are scary. People should be afraid when they see them in public. No, not everyone should carry a weapon openly. That's both and absurd and dangerous idea. Law enforcement carry weapons and that's why they wear uniforms. If everyone carries weapon we will have little chance to distinguish the criminals from the law abiding citizens.

Perhaps next time this guy will walk into Kroger's naked...

girlygirl February 4th, 2013 | 4:22pm

The most sensible comment I heard on the podcast was a caller who said something like "There is a difference between having a right and doing right."

Dennis W February 4th, 2013 | 5:34pm

girlygirl - That hits the nail on the head.

Jooles February 4th, 2013 | 6:09pm

I wonder if there's a cause of civil action by Kroger against the gunman -- for example, if sales at that location sink due to (provable) customer fear.

I'm at a loss to understand how enforcement and the DA's office might be stymied on charges that would be appropriate should someone else pull the same brain-dead stunt as our "Rifleman." The charge is clear: "disturbing the peace." Of course -of course!- the judge might toss out the complaint, but it's reasonable enough to at least be heard.

Where I grew up, people carried weapons, and the city had hitching posts for those who traveled by "hoss," and that was only 3 hours from here. So, nobody was especially alarmed to see rifles and pistols wherever they went. It was "normal." In Cville, however, a public display of fire arms is more likely to arouse some concern, especially among those who haven't been exposed.

Which is why the "rifleman" should have known better. It was, and it is, his right to carry heat if he so desires. Likewise, it is my right to carry nasty signs up and down the mall, if I want, And the "right" of pan handlers to handle pans, and the right of people to "occupy." But in the local culture (if I may use that word) there is a gross-out factor that can go along with expression of your rights.

And let's be honest, here. Gun-totin' people are not what one would expect to find in the genteel society of Cville. So, yes, people are going to be concerned when one appears. Given the recent massacre in CT, one might expect by standers to get nervous, because you never know.

If the gunman was an idiot, than Girard was flatly dangerous. If the demonstrator purely was off his rocker, than the prodding by Bob may have been enough to light the fuse. Whatever heroism may have been earned by a confrontation could easily have been balanced by the raw meat of by-standers. That this did not occur to Bob makes him, in my mind, the less thoughtful of the two. My guess is that Bob is blessed (or cursed) with the "thrill" gene.

The cops? Probably did the right thing. Their question must be, "what is the cost of being wrong, based on the action we take?" Potentially, their own lives are at risk, as well as those of the customers and staff. And, against THAT, they must balance 2nd amendment considerations. So, they must do the thing with the least ugly outcome if it all goes wrong (as best they can guess). Given the unknowns, we can't expect them to know the RIGHT decision; we can only hope they make a REASONABLE decision, which they evidently did, under the circumstances.

bushcat February 4th, 2013 | 8:26pm

bet all bob did was piss his self. boy with the ar should be takin in the woods and have the tar beat out of him for being stupid .

RandomThoughts February 4th, 2013 | 8:50pm

You life will not be complete without this video .

I read this story and thought about it .

It includes a guy who thinks he is jesus and a hatched wielding hippy who saved the day , Could have been in C-ville if it was anywhere.

IF all you gun sissies only knew the how many of the people you shop with every day carry a gun .

RandomThoughts February 4th, 2013 | 9:04pm

A Man frustrated over the supression of his rights that straps on a gun and walks into krogers makes as much sence as a street full of half naked gay men in the strutting their rights or dressing up like women and running into a cathothic church.

You aint helping NOBODY OUT . YOU ALL LOOK STUPID.

Gets some sense about you people .... this is not to be played with .

icantremember February 4th, 2013 | 9:09pm

I had to go to three different countries and 5 different names to post at th Hook .

Its only accepts fake stuff.. keep it real BIGFOOT eats it .

weird :)

Sick Of Double Standards February 4th, 2013 | 9:12pm

Bushcat: If the Charlottesville police should suddnely decide to exercise consistency in policy, expect the cops to show up at your house or place of business to temporarily detain you for a mental evaluation, take you to Region Ten for a psychiatric evaluation at which point the counselors will be informed that you have a proclivity for inciting violence, and from there you'll be sent to UVA or Western State to be mentally adjudicated and permanently banned from ever legally possessing a firearm. Enjoy.

WhoaNelly February 4th, 2013 | 9:28pm

@ SODS...Bushcat didn't say anything that would incite violence, but you sure do have something to get off your chest. Maybe a shrink is in your future....

bushcat February 4th, 2013 | 9:38pm

yes strapping on a rifle and walking in the krogers is stupid . a weapon that no one sees hurts no one. what would have happened if that fool had started shooting . Bob would piss him self, random thoughts would drop a load and the man with the hidden gun might save the day.

Sick Of My Gorilla Chest Hair February 4th, 2013 | 9:39pm

I'd love to know how you can call for the tar to be beat of of somebody without being accused of inciting violence. Maybe it's all about who you know?

bushcat February 4th, 2013 | 9:48pm

cops might even bring him to the woods

Gorilla Chest February 4th, 2013 | 9:55pm

They had better watch out for Bigfoot

bushcat February 4th, 2013 | 10:11pm

Good night See ya in krogers

John Teller February 4th, 2013 | 10:12pm

He should sue the heck out of the cops. They violated his second amendment rights, same as if they went and told a bunch of voters they couldn't vote or some folks they couldn't go to church, because it offended some people. I can guarantee he would get paid if it was bench trial. I could care less if some amateur carries a rifle on their back, as I always have at least 7 rounds of 45 ACP on my hip.

I appreciate this guy carrying his legal gun in plain sight, more than one of the hundred that were there with concealed permits.
I guess its scarier to see the weapon in person. Unfortunately for all you non-constitution folks, its his right to carry a weapon, no matter what type it is. He was no more a threat than the thousand cars in the parking lot.
I appreciate your 2nd amendment right to carry a weapon.

RandomThoughts February 5th, 2013 | 9:59am

I wish I would get hit by lightning and learn to express myself like girlygirl.

I swear , she says things the way I need to , my brain never outruns my fingers.

Rock on girlygirl

Kevin February 5th, 2013 | 12:26pm

Saddest thing about all of this, if you all would read the proposed legislation, nobody is advocating 'taking' your gun(s) away from you, nor 'suppressing' your rights to do anything less than you have now. Just asking to put some sanity in the whole subject.

My late father-in-law, a decorated USMC senior officer, Korea and Vietnam Vet, commander of the first marines to arrive in Hue City, was angered and enraged when one of his daughters boyfriends, an MP and part-time DC cop, showed up at a family gathering with his revolver on his belt. (There were dozens of small children present). My father-in-law's reaction was to have me ask the gentleman (loosely applied term) to put is weapon away - lock it in the car, to which he complied.

My father-in-laws point? He fought and commanded men into action that cost them their lives so that we in America did not have to live where citizens needed to, or felt they needed to, be carried with them all the time. I'm 60 years old this year and have never felt the need to carry a firearm to ensure my safety. This 'Lawrence' person should be in the military if he wants to feel like a bad ass, problem is he probably would whimp out. Even the Military do not allow open carry on posts or bases. Get a life folks.

jimi hendrix February 5th, 2013 | 12:56pm

If the military did allow open carry, how many of the 13 dead and 30 wounded by Hasan at Ft. Hood stil be in tip top shape. Mind you, he did this with handguns....

Kevin February 5th, 2013 | 1:08pm

Oh Jimi! And how much collateral damage would have been done?

What we're talking about here in the vast majority of cases are perpetrators who are unstable. In the case you cite, the guy was a known problem and concern - AND NO ONE TOOK ANY ACTION. Same with Aurora, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, etc. Change the regulations to make it hard, if not impossible for those 'not all there' to be unable to acquire guns. Nothing is perfect, but you can't 'not try'.

Explain to me why La Pierre in 1999 stated that the NRA 100% agreed to background checks for all purchases and transactions, and in 2013 they are 100% against it?

D February 5th, 2013 | 2:39pm

Kevin,

The Sandy Hook shooter stole his guns -- from his mother, who was the first victim. Regulations tightening background checks would not have stopped him.

You bring up a handful of cases where a lunatic goes on a rampage with a gun, and there is a reason you can only bring up a handful: it is a very unusual event, so rare that 7 occurrences in 2012 was an unusually large number. By comparison, consider how many people were murdered with guns in 2010: 8,775. Rare events should not be the basis for laws or policies, especially since laws tend to stay on the books long past the point where they no longer make sense (see, for example, the recent articles about Virginia's cohabitation law).

Of the 8775 homicides involving firearms in 2010, 6009 involved handguns; 375 involved rifles (1939 unspecified types of guns, and a few hundred with other types):

So really, the focus on reinstating the assault weapons ban is just counterproductive. We do not need an assault weapons ban, because rifles are not generally the problem that we have. What needs to change is our approach to handgun regulation, because handguns are preferred by criminals and are being used in crimes across the country. As I said earlier, do not get distracted by the size or appearance of rifles; rifles are not the most urgent problem we face.

D

Mighty Horse February 5th, 2013 | 2:48pm

"He was no more a threat than the thousand cars in the parking lot."

Oh really? Because he said in a radio interview over the weekend that if someone in the store w/ a concealed carry had drawn down on him, he would have had every right to defend himself. Read: he was prepared to start a firefight in a crowded grocery store for the sake of making a point.

People who do not weigh the consequences of their actions, especially when it comes to guns, are always a threat.

Roger Warwick February 5th, 2013 | 3:14pm

If you see him again? Baseball bat. To the head. From behind. Problem solved.

yes, d, he did steal his mothers guns. he was also under care and his mother was very concerned about the kids sanity. IF there had been due diligence on her part, perhaps by prescription, 26 people would be alive today. I know its conjecture. A good friend of mine was recently warned to 'secure your guns' by his adult son's (living at home) therapist. If there is a will there is a way, but if its more difficult maybe those will not pursue.

Kevin February 5th, 2013 | 3:37pm

......

bushcat February 5th, 2013 | 4:32pm

careful roger people above will have you locked up and take away you're right to buy a gun . Kid in krogers has most likely left town. the dumb ass

Dennis W February 5th, 2013 | 6:03pm

D & Kevin,

True the Sandy Hook shooter stole the guns from his mother. There is a report she purchased them as she had an idea she could use them to teach him responsibility. This report has not been verified, but it makes more sense than her buying semi-automatic rifles and pistols for herself. I also read somewhere, also unverified, that Adam Lantz was on the restricted list. In the former an automobile would have been a better purchase for her purposes. In the later she was at least an enabler and unwitting co-conspirator to his acts of murder.

No law is perfect and there will always be people who will seek to get around any law. Some will succeed but by far most will fail. We can't allow the few who break the law and are not held accountable keep us from enacting laws that are both needed and just.

The discussion is in part around background checks. Are they needed? 40 % of all sales of fire arms are not subject to background checks. We are in the middle of an epidemic of gun violence and many of the shooters would not pass a check. That pretty much convinces we need to expand background checks.

I understand this will be asking more out of dealers who are not now being asked to run checks. A just law would require we attend to extra costs and inconveniences and reduce them. I would also favor legislation that contains incentives to act toward the goal of 100 % background checks. After all, it's been the law that was wrong, not the dealers.

bushcat February 5th, 2013 | 6:25pm

all dealers must run a background check . it is the law no exceptions. the ones that don't do it break the law . the sales at the gun shows in question are not gun dealers but private sellers and as far as I know there is no way set up for them to even run a background check.

Dennis W February 5th, 2013 | 6:48pm

bushcat

The law covers first time sales, but does not cover resales at gun shows. There a person presents an apparently valid weapons permit and the sale happens. The permit could have been issued in 1999 in a state three states over, but the sale happens. A lot can happen between 1999 and 2013 and between one state and another.

bushcat February 5th, 2013 | 7:16pm

You must not have ever bought a gun because you have not a clue . do some research. I am not talking about a private sale . GUN DEALER. understand

John February 5th, 2013 | 7:19pm

"IF there had been due diligence on her part, perhaps by prescription, 26 people would be alive today." -Kevin

Kevin, I don't just assume Lanza was the only shooter and I don't assume he killed himself because that's what the media and police say. But being fair, let's assume that their reports that Lanza was upset that his concerned mother was planning on exercising "due diligence" (I assume you're talking about detention w/out charges and habeas corpus, medication without consent and all sorts of action deemed human rights violations by the Geneva Convention) by having him involuntarily committed are true. If not for her due diligence 26 people would still be alive today.

John February 5th, 2013 | 7:36pm

And Kevin as to the friend of yours with the son seeing a therapist, how good a therapist is that, especially if the son depends on the therapy, trusts the therapist? That is a huge betrayal of trust for a therapist to instill fear of his/her client in that client's father. Not to mention extremely disrespectful. If I had a therapist and they did that I garauntee you I'd never go to him/her again, period. And no, I'm not gonna try to get Sam and Roger Warwick TDO'd for calling for the man to be murdered (yes, baseball bats to the head kill more people than AR15s) than, nor would I not do that to you for your calls for violence either Bushcat. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But yeah, people have been stripped of their gun rights for much less than your calls for violence. Much less. Just something to keep in mind.

John February 5th, 2013 | 8:23pm

And I'm sorry for the mulitiple postings but I would be remiss Kevin if I didn't remind you that Lanza was under the infulence of prescription SSRI's at the time of the shootings, as were practically every single other shooter/patsy who has participated in a mass school shooting since these drugs came into mass use. I challenge you to find me one who wasn't.

Dennis W February 5th, 2013 | 8:24pm

Private sales are ignored?

Dennis W February 5th, 2013 | 9:34pm

Bushcat,

I listen to as much of this debate as I can. It's not necessary to purchase a weapon to determine the facts. The statement 40% of all weapons sold are subjected to background checks is true. The overwhelming number of these sales take place at gun shows where mandatory background checks aren't required.

Diane Rehm interviewed representatives from both sides of the issue on her Monday show about the Protection of Lawful Commerce of Fire Arms Act. The law is tangential to our discussion here, but some statements were made by her guests who know the more than you or I. You can listen to the show if you go to her website and do a site search of law by name.

One guest was Richard Feldman, President of the Independent Firearms Owners Association. Mr. Feldman is an attorney who has argued on the side of gun advocates. If he has a bias on the issue it would be toward your position. He made a clear distinction between dealers and sellers of guns at gun shows. He said mandatory background are not required at gun shows because the sellers at those shows are not dealers.

On the other side of the issue Peter Wallston, a reporter for the Washington Post, reported families of the victims of Sandy Hook are considering a lawsuit of the manufacturer of Bushmaster because the weapons sold to Nancy Lanza didn't have a bio-metric device on them to keep anyone but herself from using the weapons. He also stated Adam Lanza was on the restricted list due to his mental illness.

John February 5th, 2013 | 9:59pm

Adam Lanza has never been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers of the crime. Adam Lanza is therefore presumed innocent of the crime. The fact that he's dead is no cause for denying him that right, the fact that Eric Harris and Dylan Clebold are dead is no cause for denying them that right, the fact that Sueng Hui Cho is dead is no cause for denying him that right. How convenient it is that they're all dead, there will never be a trial in which any of them will have the opportunity to repudiate the allegations by calling witnesses, etc. And how very convenient it is that James Holmes was rendered speechless by chemicals at his preliminary. Diane Rehm works for the government by the way.

bushcat February 5th, 2013 | 10:21pm

I said background checks were mandatory by dealers . I don't understand myself why a private seller is even allowed to have a booth at a gun show. as far as the permit you spoke of ??? there is no such thing .. you need no permit to buy a gun . you must have a picture Id and 2 forms of id with the same billing address . if you are from nc and want to buy a hand gun in va forget it you can't . FROM A DEALER. if you buy from a private seller you need nothing ........ that is right nothing . that is the gun show loop whole . the private seller also is the one that has no way to do a background check if he wanted to . understand.

Dennis W February 5th, 2013 | 10:35pm

John

I get what you are saying. Regardless of what appears to be the facts of the case, none of these persons had any evidence presented against them in a court of law. We should not prejudge. Saying this I will say the case looks bad for Lanza and Cho. ; >)!

bushcat February 5th, 2013 | 10:43pm

I have been to many gun shows and most of if not all the booths are dealers . all doing background checks. during big shows like chantilly show the state police are over run with background checks . if the shows were all private sellers why not have moon shine shows as well . we must look at the problem with a real understanding in order to come up with a real solution ..

Dennis W February 5th, 2013 | 10:54pm

bushcart

Thanks for the clarification. I thought one needed a weapons permit to purchase a weapon at a gun show. According to you all one needs is two forms of picture ID and two proofs of residence.

Many of us we able to get fake ID's when we were drinking underage. Seems no sweat for a weapon depending on how strong the requirement is for proof of residence. A criminal could make some money that way. Stealing guns from the homes of citizens has a bigger profit margin, but also has more risk of discovery. This scam could last awhile before one is caught and there is the added travel benefit in going to different gun shows.

Ponce De leon February 5th, 2013 | 11:54pm

It seems to me an easy enough thing to do for the government to have a voluntary database where people who WANT to get preapproved could do so, then there could be kiosks at every gun show where a private owner and a buyer could go to the kiosk, the buyer could put in his pin and his picture and fingerprint reader cold "verify" him on the spot, thus relieving all gun sellers af any and all liabilitties for what happens after the sale of that gun. This should reduce the problem down to a point where those that bypass it will be a small enough group that they can be investigated to see if they are straw purchasers.

On a side note: This is why some people seem to "overreact" to proposed gun regulations:

Here's my problem with this guy: He's hurting his own cause! This is like the yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-movie-theater-freedom-of-speech issue. Let's say I'm in the store shopping. I have a conceal carry permit and a loaded gun. I see some guy walking-in with an assault rifle. I would logically conclude that there is only 1 reason this guy would be doing this. He's about to start taking people out! Do I wait for him to start shooting? Hell no! I'm going to exercise my Constitutional right to protect myself and put a bullet in this guy's head BEFORE he can kill a dozen people, including myself! No brainer!

Dennis W February 6th, 2013 | 8:59am

John,

No I can't now agree. I know of no such presumption that can be declared illegal through a criminal process. Citizens have a right to their opinion no matter how enlightened it may or not be. In investigations into events, such this state's investigation into the.shootings at Virginia Tech, start will the goal of finding out what happened and not with a presumption of events.

Sometimes it appears the police presume they know who the perpetrator is and act solely on their presumption. An example is the Chandra Levy case. I say "appears" in this case allowing for the likelihood all the information on this case is not public.

The DC Police Chief, under pressure from a California attorney named Billy Martin and under pressure from the public, ignored information his department had suggesting a rapist murdered her. The police knew she was a jogger and believed she left her apartment to jog. They also knew there had been a rapist attacking women who were jogging in DC parks.

The police, under the chief's personal direction, spent valuable time and considerable cost investigating Gary Conduit almost exclusively. So much so the DC police didn't interview her neighbors until two months after her disappearance. They also failed to uncover her rotting corpse in a nearby park when they had information about how the rapist previously attacked women in the park. They might have been able to deduce where to look for her body, but they apparently didn't act on the information they had suggesting a different theory of the case.

Is this a case of illegal presumption of guilt? Gary Conduit brought several successful civil suits in response to his being presumed the perpetrator. The suits I recall were against publishers that printed the wildest claims (one tabloid printed evidence had been found that proved he was guilty when no evidence was found), but can't recall if Billy Martin or the DC police chief were included in any of these suits. These were civil suits that determined civil liability, not criminal guilt.

I am aware criminal liability can be assigned in some civil cases. This suggest a connection with civil liability and criminal guilt, but am not aware that presumption of guilt is part of these cases. Presumably the families of Klebold, Harris, Cho, and Lanza could sue on the basis their family member had been defamed through a presumption of guilt, but it would be tough to prove even reasonable doubt let alone innocence in any of those cases. Such a case could exist, but that's a civil defamation case, not a case of illegal presumption of guilt.

Dennis W February 6th, 2013 | 9:23am

David W

Store Managers carry concealed weapons? You were talking hypothetically maybe? If this is the case, I no longer want to shop in grocery stores where the Manager is armed.

David W February 6th, 2013 | 9:34am

Dennis W
I never mentioned anything about a store manager. Yes, I was talking hypothetically. I wrote that I was shopping, not managing. My point was that the hypothetical situation I described could EASILY occur. How did this guy help his cause?

Dennis W February 6th, 2013 | 11:28am

He didn't help his cause one bit. I strongly question the wisdom of the open carry cause as you might tell from my posts. I agree, the scenario you present could easily occur. Then I think we could have a very sad and bloody mess on our hands.

bushcat February 6th, 2013 | 12:55pm

picture Id and 2 with the same address is what you need to start filling out the paper work for the background check. same as if you go to a gun store . fake id will not work when it gets to the background check. ponce de leon has the idea if you are going to allow private sellers at a gun show.

bushcat February 6th, 2013 | 2:56pm

dennis w try doing a background check with a fake Id and see where it gets you . most likely in jail real fast .

Dennis W February 6th, 2013 | 4:06pm

Indeed. When I was a kid we had someone go to jail for that.

PavePusher February 13th, 2013 | 10:21pm

Mr. Girard went out of his way to be a jackass.

Whoever called the police and made a false report in their inbred hysteria put this man in grave danger and should be charged with reckless endangerment.

Mr. Girard, should I ever see you lawfully carrying legal objects in public, I shall most certainly accost you.

PavePusher February 13th, 2013 | 10:25pm

Mr. Girard went out of his way to be a jerk.

Whoever called the police and made a false report in their inbred hysteria put this man in grave danger and should be charged with reckless endangerment.

Mr. Girard, should I ever see you lawfully carrying legal objects in public, I shall most certainly accost you.

Dennis W February 14th, 2013 | 8:24am

There's a reason you wouldn't call the police and would intervene yourself?